User Profile: tmarends


Member Since: September 03, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [4] February 1, 2016 at 6:38pm

    In the US, time and again, the courts have ruled that WORDS and IMAGES one finds offensive MAY be refused, but the basic service MAY NOT. In other words, if you bake and sell cakes in a public space (a storefront, not working out of your home) you cannot refuse to sell any cake you normally make to anyone who wants it. What you CAN refuse is adding WORDS or IMAGES you find offensive, including “Support Gay Marriage” or “God hates ****”.

  • [-2] December 31, 2015 at 5:24pm

    The lesbian couple was not asking for anything that the Kleins did not advertise that they sold. This isn’t a private transaction between two people… this is a business that sells goods. The business cannot refuse to sell something that they normally sell simply because of the buyers race, gender, eye color… or sexual orientation. That is the law in Oregon.

  • [-4] December 31, 2015 at 5:20pm

    @Robbo_Ronnin The lesbian couple had already arranged to have a wedding cake made by the Klein’s… this was done at a Wedding Bazaar in the area that Melissa Klein was working at a booth for her business in. Melissa Klein had already taken the order to make the cake. It was when the couple went to the store to finalize the deal that Aaron Klein turned them away for being a lesbian couple. IF you sell wedding cakes… IF you advertise that you sell wedding cakes… AND IF you participate in a Wedding Bazaar to promote your selling of wedding cakes… sounds to me like the Kleins were actively seeking people who wanted to spend a little extra for a wedding cake.

    As for your WBC example…. in court case after court case… it has been ruled the WORDS or IMAGES can be refused, but the actual service cannot. I can’t refuse to sell you the cake, but I can refuse to put those words on it.

  • [-6] December 31, 2015 at 12:11pm

    How is this “Involuntary servitude”? The Klein’s sought out a business license so they could sell baked goods, including cakes, to the public. The granting of the license (which they sought after) came with stipulations on how the business must be run. This is true of EVERY business out there. Go ahead, check your own business license… it will stipulate which laws are applicable to the running of your business. These would include non-discrimination laws. IF sexual orientation is a protected class in the non-discrimination laws of the jurisdiction, as they are is this case, then you provide your service or risk losing your license.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-2] December 31, 2015 at 12:01pm

    How is selling someone a cake, a cake you advertise that you sell on a regular basis, “participating” in the ceremony where the cake is being served? If they sell a cake for someone’s bar mitzvah, are they “participating” in the event? If they sell a cake celebrating someone’s divorce, are they “participating” in the divorce?

    Responses (4) +
  • [-15] December 31, 2015 at 11:50am

    Actually, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, as the couple gave up that right when they filed for a business license, and agreed to all the State and Local laws in running that business. A business license is nothing more than a contract with the government to run your business, and like any other contract, the terms set in it are binding.

    Responses (7) +
  • December 22, 2015 at 4:25pm

    Disney cheapened out on the musical score? Written, once again, by the legendary John Williams… maintaining musical themes through 7 films now with the same composer??

  • [-1] December 15, 2015 at 5:16pm

    I cannot, and will not, vote for Cruz. If he gets the nomination, I’m voting 3rd party.

    Responses (3) +
  • [11] September 16, 2015 at 1:28pm

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) — “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) — “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

    Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) — “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” and “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.”

  • [12] September 16, 2015 at 1:21pm

    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974) — “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) — “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

    Carey v. Population Service International (1977) — “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) — “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Turner v. Safley (1987) — “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”

  • [20] September 16, 2015 at 1:15pm

    Maynard v. Hill (1888) — The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

    Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) — SC ruled that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942) — SC ruled that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

    Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    Loving v. Virginia (1967) — “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) — “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

    Responses (4) +
  • [-2] September 6, 2015 at 11:52pm

    “The three-page motion does not include arguments as to why Davis should be released but amends Davis’ earlier appeal of the judge’s order.”

    I’m sorry… it sounds more and more like Ms Davis is just being played by her “attorneys”… they are not interested in her at all… it’s all about lining their own pockets.

    Responses (4) +
  • [19] September 4, 2015 at 4:54pm

    Kentucky law mandates that the County Clerk office issue marriage licenses. If she wants that law changed, she should work WITH the KY Legislature.

  • [15] September 4, 2015 at 4:45pm

    Under KY law, the County Judge Executive CAN issue licenses in the absence of the County Clerk. Since she’s in jail, she is absent. If they have the name of the Judge Executive, they are Legal.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 4, 2015 at 10:49am

    She was refusing to allow her deputy clerks from issuing licenses because they still have her name on them, which is a requirement of KY law (that the county clerks name is on all licenses where issued). The court cannot change that, unless there is a valid reason to rule that requirement as unlawful, which it is not. That is up to the KY legislature to change that requirement.

  • September 3, 2015 at 10:07pm

    @JRCahill — The law restricting marriage to a couple with different genders (1 man/1 woman) was ruled unconstitutional. The genders of the couple seeking a marriage license can no longer be used to keep a license from them. The other marriage laws are still intact. If a couple meets all LEGAL requirements they should be issued a license.

  • [7] September 3, 2015 at 9:31pm

    @Joshua — The Supreme Court did NOT make law, they interpreted law, which is their authority… they determined that restricting marriage based on gender to be unconstitutional. Therefore the Kentucky law limiting marriage based on the genders of the couple is NO LONGER VALID, and NOT ENFORCEABLE.

  • [50] September 3, 2015 at 5:05pm

    The US Supreme Court ruled that the laws mandating the genders of the couple requesting a license as unconstitutional… all OTHER marriage laws remain intact. Part of her duties as county clerk, a job she sought, is to ensure couples meet all LEGAL requirements, which the couples who have been denied do. She has been found as failing to meet her LEGAL responsibilities for the JOB she sought, and intimidating her office from exercising their LEGAL duties as well. She is NOT following the laws of KY, which is why she was found in contempt.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] September 3, 2015 at 3:36pm

    The Supreme Court did NOT make a new law… they ruled that an existing law limiting the applicants for a marriage license be of different genders as unconstitutional. All other laws in regards to marriage licenses are still intact. As part of her “job” as county clerk, under the laws of KY, she cannot refuse a couple a license if they meet all requirements for it… the genders of the two applicants can no longer be considered. She is in violation of her oath of office for refusing to issue a license to a couple who meets all legal requirements.

  • [2] September 3, 2015 at 3:29pm

    The law restricting the gender of the two applicants was ruled unconstitutional. All other laws as to the issue of marriage licenses remain intact. As long as the applicants met all other legal requirements, she can not refuse them the license based solely on the gender of the two applicants. Her “job” was to ensure they met all legal requirements as defined by the state…. which she continued to refuse to do.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love